NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] [IP] Re: Cox to Trial New Congestion Management System
----- Forwarded message from David Farber <dave@farber.net> ----- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:44:20 -0500 From: David Farber <dave@farber.net> Subject: [IP] Re: Cox to Trial New Congestion Management System Reply-To: dave@farber.net To: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> Begin forwarded message: From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed@reed.com> Date: January 28, 2009 4:27:59 PM EST To: dave@farber.net Cc: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com> Subject: Re: [IP] Cox to Trial New Congestion Management System No need to be anonymous on my part. I have testified on this matter, and will again. Here there are two MAJOR problems. Under the current architecture of the Internet, Cox would indeed have to inspect the contents of user traffic to make an accurate determination of the type of Internet traffic at the level of detail described in their document. If Cox would provide clear technical documentation of how they determine what type of traffic is being emitted this could be clarified. I cannot think how they would do what they claim to do without deep inspection of user data. Perhaps a Cox engineer would provide this to your list, Dave. For example, if one has an IP voice client sending RTP/UDP/IP packets to a peer node, following the VoIP standards, it is quite difficult without looking inside the IP datagram to determine that is such a thing. (there are special cases that can be determined for certain IP voice gateways onto the PSTN, but IP telephone to IP telephone connections that have been introduced by SIP session initiators cannot even be identified by having reserved port numbers on either end). The standard way to do this is to use the IP header TOS field, which was designed to indicate "time sensitivity". However, that field does not tell you what type of traffic is carried in the way that Cox explains it. The other problem worth considering here is that Cox doesn't contemplate new, yet-to-be-invented protocols for new applications, which can be in either category. If Cox truly provides "Internet" service, it must understand that those yet-to-be-invented applications are a core part of the Internet's value - the Internet grew by being inventive, not by negotiating with Cox for permission to run new types of traffic over the connections subscribers have paid for as *Internet* service, not Cox-brand service. David Farber wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: * > *Date: *January 28, 2009 8:45:29 AM EST > *To: *Dave Farber <dave@farber.net <mailto:dave@farber.net>> > *Subject: **!!Anonymize!!: Cox to Trial New Congestion Management > System* > > *_PLEASE ANONYMIZE!!!! > _* > See http://www.cox.com/policy/congestionmanagement/ > > The concerns I see with this are that this would have to use DPI, very > likely installed in-line, in order to function. Former FCC Chairman > Martin referred to this as opening customer’s mail to look at what sort > of letter is inside. In addition to that, it is hard to imagine that > ISPs would want to be in the middle of making decisions for users about > relative priorities of different applications. One user may really want > VoIP treated best, while for another it is P2P or gaming. These choices > may be better left to users themselves to sort out. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/> [Powered by Listbox] > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ----- End forwarded message -----